This case involved five plaintiffs in error, Louis Curtis, Benjamin Curtis, John L. Hubbard, James D. B. Curtis and Henry A. Booraine who were suing Madame Therese Petitpain and Manderville Marigny for damages related to the seizure of their property by Marigny while he was acting as United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1854-1855. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property without due process or compensation from the government which violated both state law and federal statutes at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Madame Petitpain on grounds that she did not have knowledge or control over her husband’s actions when he seized the plaintiff's property as a U.S marshal; therefore she could not be held liable for his conduct under either state or federal laws at that time period

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Curtis argued that the plaintiffs had a valid claim to their property and should not have been deprived of it. He stated that under Louisiana law, when two people own land jointly, one cannot sell or transfer ownership without the consent of both parties. In this case, Victor Feste had transferred his portion of the property to Madame Petitpain without obtaining permission from his co-owners. Therefore, according to Justice Curtis' interpretation of Louisiana law at the time, Madame Petitpain did not have a legitimate claim on any part of the property in question and was wrongfully occupying it. Furthermore he argued that since she was aware that her title was invalid when she purchased it from Feste she should be liable for damages caused by her wrongful possession as well as restitution for all profits made while in possession.